Greek Electricity System Faces Collapse

Greece, aiming to stave off a fresh energy crisis, plans to support its main electricity market operator through a temporary tax on renewable power producers and by extending an emergency loan, a senior official said on Friday. The electricity system came close to collapse in June when market operator LAGHE was overwhelmed by subsidies it pays to green power producers as part of efforts to bolster solar energy. Greece has slashed the guaranteed feed-in prices it pays to some solar operators and is no longer approving permits for their installation. –Harry Papachristou, Reuters, 28 September 2012 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/28/us-greece-interview-idUSBRE88R0UQ20120928)

The UK biofuels industry stands to be ‘devastated’ by draft proposals being developed by the European Commission, renewables chiefs have warned. “The great irony is we have been repeatedly asking for a clear pathway to 2020, not least to secure investment in technological advancement. Nobody listened. Now Europe is planning a quantum leap which threatens to wipe us out. It is a double whammy and an absolutely galling prospect for companies that have invested millions in good faith.” –Farmers Guardian, 28 September 2012 (http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/renewables/biofuels-industry-would-be-devastated-by-eu-plans-rea/50036.article)

Switzerland would have to charge higher end-user power prices and resort to new gas-fired plants to fill the supply gap created by its planned nuclear phase-out prompted by Japan’s Fukushima accident, the Swiss energy ministry said on Friday. The statement also said the average household electricity bill, estimated at 890 Swiss Francs ($950) a year, was due to rise in line with higher costs for renewable energy and to cover the costs of investment in the grid. –Reuters, 28 September 2012 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/28/switzerland-gas-idUSL5E8KSFFT20120928)

The defence of windfarms put forward by Mark Lynas and Chris Goodall, which was discussed a couple of days ago, has now had a response from Gordon Hughes. Hughes is less than impressed with the two greens’ table manners. He seems even less impressed with their analysis of the electricity grid. –Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill, 28 September 2012 (http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/9/28/ouch.html)

This was bound to happen and will continue, country by country, as the reality of the fallacy of “sustainable” sinks in. These “sustainable” sources cost more energy over their production and entire lifetime including shutdown and recycling that they will ever produce.

Nuclear is the correct path and I personally want them to make these new reactors at least equivalent to the LFTR designs, self-shut down, operating at ambient atmospheric pressures and producing magnitudes less of short half-life waste products that can mostly be extracted after ten years into useable nuclear products. The small amount remaining we can easily handle for the few centuries while they decay. This means they must be designed to burn 99% of the fuel as was demonstrated decades ago, and then ignored so atomic bombs could be produced from the plutonium waste. Mans biggest mistake.

“green” energy sources in Scotland fell by almost half for a period earlier this year – because it was not wet or windy enough.

This needs explanation or correction. Was it “too wet”, i.e. too cloudy and a simple typo error? Was the “not wet” condition indicative of fewer storms and less wind? Was some of the green energy hydroelectric and “not wet enough’ means the reservoir levels are low? In what other way could “not wet enough” be a problem for green energy production?

Lynas and Goodall, to their credit, showed up on Bishop Hill on an earlier post on their report:http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/9/26/missing-the-point.html
However after a few exchanges when a number of BH regulars demonstrated that they knew a hell of a lot more about electricity generation than the clueless greenies who were impressed by Lynas and Goodall’s sleight of hand they disappeared sharpish.

Like a house of cards this will all collapse very soon. The fact is, Europe can’t afford these utopian fantasies. They never could. We warned them.

My feelings are that Greece will default sometime after the US elections. (Yes, Obama asked them not to make a decision on their bailout until after the election and the Eurozone complied.) But, after that, we have a different house of cards in play. Windmills and solar panels will be the least of our concerns.

Greece, aiming to stave off a fresh energy crisis, plans to support its main electricity market operator through a temporary tax on renewable power producers and by extending an emergency loan, a senior official said on Friday. The electricity system came close to collapse in June when market operator LAGHE was overwhelmed by subsidies it pays to green power producers as part of efforts to bolster solar energy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So…. they are putting a tax on green energy in order to subsidize conventional energy because the conventional energy is going broke due to subsidies paid to green energy. I believe this is called robbing Peter to pay Paul with money that Paul robbed from Peter.

Somewhere some beauracrat is no doubt adding up all the jobs in both industries and claiming that he saved/created all of them.

Lessee if I’ve got this straight: Japan had a pretty bad incident with Fukushima caused by a once-in-a-lifetime tsunami, so Switzerland is going to phase out nuclear power? Why, because they fear a tsunami will wash over their nuclear reactor(s) and cause similar damage?

News flash, Switzerland: If a tsunami high enough to wash over Switzerland hits y’all, nuclear reactor damage will be the least of your worries.

So Scotland is just waking up to the fact that wind is intermittant (and never blows when you really want it, like in mid-winter). Just how stupid are these people?

Quite stupid, really, to the point of being religious. I posted long articles about wind-intermittancy on the Wiki wind power pages, in 2005, and they were deleted time and time again. Finally I was kicked off Wiki for “site vandalism”. That’s right – telling the truth on Wiki is classed as vandalism.

These are the levels on which Green ‘believers’ work. They are religious, and they will oppose each and every fact and truth that undermines their belief system. Like all believers, “there are none so blind as those who will not see”.

I was talking to a German nuclear scientist (who was looking for a job in the UK). He said that half Germany’s nuclear plants were already closed. To make up the difference, they are boosting output from brown-coal plants, and imports from France.

However, the brown-coal plants are the dirtiest of all, increasing CO2 output by a considerable margin. And the electricity from France is all nuclear.

Are these ‘believers’ mad or what? If we let them, they will destroy us all.

“Finally I was kicked off Wiki for “site vandalism”. That’s right – telling the truth on Wiki is classed as vandalism.”

There is no objective truth. There is only the NPOV. You should have written: “Scientists speculate that wind speed changes over time, leading to potential fluctuations in the output of wind turbines.” And give a reference for that. For instance this IEA report:http://www.uwig.org/IEA_Report_on_variability.pdf
“VARIABILITY OF
WIND POWER AND
OTHER RENEWABLES”

Lessee if I’ve got this straight: Japan had a pretty bad incident with Fukushima caused by a once-in-a-lifetime tsunami…

Well, technically, the reactors fared quite well, taking little if any damage. The supporting equipment was protected by a seawall that was designed for what was expected from Typhoons and Tsunamis, plus a margin of error to deal with transitory events larger than is usually seen.

No one expected a “Black Swan” event that produced a tsunami twice that height, well above the expected margin of error.

Silver Ralph says:
September 29, 2012 at 12:18 pm
“Are these ‘believers’ mad or what? If we let them, they will destroy us all.”

Yes they are, they are my coworkers, but be assured that they’re all parroting class warfare arguments at the moment, as that is the narrative they currently get fed by the public media and Der Spiegel.

There is no objective truth. There is only the NPOV. You should have written: “Scientists speculate that wind speed changes over time, leading to potential fluctuations in the output of wind turbines.” And give a reference for that.

Stephen Rasey says:
September 29, 2012 at 10:16 am
Was it “too wet”, i.e. too cloudy and a simple typo error? Was the “not wet” condition indicative of fewer storms and less wind?

Not enough rain, for the hydro electric plants, most of Scotland’s (and therefore the UK’s) hydro electricity is generated in North West Scotland. Despite what you might have read about the UK having been drowned by rain this did NOT apply to North West Scotland which was unusually dry.http://www.robedwards.com/2012/07/blame-it-on-the-jet-stream.html

Do not forget that whilst all that rain was falling early in the spring/summer there were drought orders in place. Hydro is not easy to produce in drought conditions.

As dry and low windspeed conditions often go hand-in-hand below expectation power from windmills was produced. This came as no surprise to anyone over 50 years old and had a working memory, however politicians and and climate “scientistics” (aka CAGW priests) were surprised and shocked by these events.

Therefore in answer to your question, there is no misprint and the report is accurate and factually correct.

Off-topic, a bit. Greek power industry has been heavily affected by EU Directives [like all power industries in the EU, not localized to Greece].
Here is a lift from a site disussing EU draft legislation on motorcycles.

Further to the meeting I’ve just had with Malcolm Harbour MEP, the chairman of the EU Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO), I now have a better idea of what we are looking at as the Type Approval and Market Surveillance Regulation moves through the EU legislative process. This is the one covering anti-tampering, ABS etc.

Because so much legislation is created within Europe, MEPs can’t reasonably debate all of it, so certain committees are tasked with the job in the early days and they then recommend things to the whole EU Parliament.

Because there are so many different subjects, even the committee members often don’t know what they’re debating, so they in turn appoint what is called a Rapporteur, who does their best to study the topic in depth and then reports back their recommendations. See how this democracy works? Anyway, after the committee members have viewed the Rapporteurs ideas, they put in their own amendments and the whole committee vote on what amendments they are happy to see. We are lucky that it just happens the Rapporteur in this instance, actually rides a bike.

Whenever that has been done the Council of Ministers and the EU Parliament get to see it, so those are other places that we can direct our lobbying.

As this is a ‘Framework Regulation’ once it’s passed it does not have to be transposed into Law in Individual Member States, as it will happen automatically.

The Rapporteur has reported back and amendments are on the table now and being discussed within IMCO. Like giving an opt out for special ‘one-off’ bike builders, (but only the British and the Finns want that) and also making ABS compulsory on mopeds too (Germans want that- or rather the German ABS industry wants that). Generally the British representatives are prepared to consider the switch option for ABS, but Malcolm Harbour for example, wants all of the onboard diagnostics thrown out too. We’ll see how the nogotiations go.

The good news is that every email and letter you’ve written has caused members of the committee to think and with MAGs equivilent organisations doing the same in Finland for example, we may realistically get some of the worst elements of this legislation under control. We’ve already upset the timetable, as the Parliament were due to vote on this in September and now IMCO won’t finally vote on their changes until 4th/5th or 6th Oct and it can’t go to Parliament before then.

However, it’s not just the Regulation from Europe that will be effecting us soon. The 10 very real European issues that we still need to draw attention to are:
1.The Anti tampering Regulation: Specifically Article 18 which wants to stop all modifications to complete power train, from airbox to controlling the rear tyre profile.
2.Compulsory ABS. If we can’t stop this, we must get a switch so that we have an option in difficult conditions where ABS doesn’t function well.
3.Automatic headlights on- passing the blame for poor observation on to us.
4.OBD. On Board Diagnostics so that easy roadside checks can be made of our emissions and so that constant readouts of engine performance can be obtained. Expensive, complicated and with the threat, rather like a tacho, of identifying past riding style…
5.RMI. Repair and Maintenance Information. Rather than keeping it hidden and available for huge expense, there is a chance that manufacturers will be forced to provide ECU codes etc for a fee. What that fee is remains to be seen.
6.The very worrying article 52: “If systems, components or seperate technical units on a list in a delegated act to this regulation, have a dual use, for vehicles intended exclusively for racing on roads and for vehicles intended for use on public roads, they may not be sold or offered for sale to consumers” So if your K&N filter can fit a CBR race bike and a CBR road bike, the best way to police that, is to make it illegal to sell the filter in Europe.The Delegated Acts are the most scary thing, as they are the lists and details drawn up by the unelected and we won’t get to see what they are including until after the Regulation has been passed!
7.In solidarity with the French we need to be drawing attention to their recent government proposal to ban all bikes over 7 years old from an urban area and to make the wearing of day-glo/ reflective clothing compulsory.
8.Full sleeve day-glo clothing for riders and passengers has been proposed in the Irish Parliament too.
9.All these issues lead to the same thing, that we must take the blame for the incompetence of other road users. And while the emergency stop has been removed as a compulsory element of the UK car driving test, we are jumping through hoops with ill-judged UK interpretations of EU licencing directives.
10.Another EU licencing Directive is on its way (3DLD) to step the bike licencing system still further and the DfT and DSA still haven’t sorted the consultation process, even though it is meant to be in law by now and enacted January 2013.
by: Paddy Tyson

Here is a large part of the problem with the human race. We are rich enough (our leaders think) to support a cadre of ‘legislators’ at every level from local, through district/county, to regional, national, supra-national, continental, and global.
They have to justify their existence [“We clarified the law on cabbage provison” is not enough to show for four years living high on the hog at tax-payer [and debt servicer] expense . . . .]
– somehow.
Regulations on banning or controlling things are the way to go.
Lots of work drafting them.
Lots of work promulgating them – and policing them.
Sorry – ‘work’ should have been in quotes – it’s not useful work . . . .

And whose fault is that? Twice in the last 30 years Republican administrations have funded Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) research at the national laboratories to build and prove the technology. And twice Democratic administrations have cancelled the projects. Now the technology is being developed by Japan, China, the UK, Russia, and private US, Czech and Australian companies. If we had proven the technology twenty years ago, we would not be stuck with relics of the Cold War designed not for safety but to produce Plutonium and massive amounts of nuclear waste.

“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.”

Even as all these ominous events occur in fairly rapid succession, the Warmist faith in their Cause seems unshaken. Truly disastrous events are sure to occur before they realize their folly, after which it will likely be too late to avert massive economic catastrophe.

Said global catastrophe will represent the ultimate monument to the unbridled hubris of progressives.

Even some environmentalists are concerned. One described Japan’s desire to create
coal plants to replace nuclear power as ” total insanity.” I don’t know how many realize this, but
that “nuclear waste” still contains about 99% of its energy after passing thru conventional reactors
and a fast reactor can use those wastes as a fuel. Estimates are that there is enough usable energy in those nuclear wastes to provide all the power this country will use for the next 1000 years. And any waste left over from passage thru a fast reactor is of low radioactivity, easily stored and returning to background levels in 100 years or so. And fast reactors are intrinsically safe, for those who think 60 years of nuclear power without any casualties is “not safe enough.”

The article is sort of unfair to hydro power. You need a Big river with a Big watershed (or a Big snowpack) and a Big dam to make hydro solid and reliable. North America is blessed with several rivers like that, and we WERE blessed in the past with governments that had the sense to build Big dams.

I’d guess Scotland’s rivers are too short for major hydro, and it doesn’t seem to have any Big reservoirs to compensate.

Well I was just in Home Depot collecting up some obsolete 12 Volt Halogen MR-16 bits and pieces, and a chap from Solar City bails me up at the robot pay station, and asks me if my monthly PG&E bill is more than $150. So I told him gleefully that it wassn’t even as much as $100 per month, which startled him, so I added also gleefully, that i was not interested in Solar City’s inefficient solar panels, that they have to “lease”, because they can’t sell them. He told me to have a nice day.

GeoLurking says:
September 29, 2012 at 12:24 pm
absoflippinglutely! – but hey, the Swiss won’t let some facts get in the way of stupid reasoning!

It actually gets better.

According to interviews conducted on NHK World news, the reactors scrammed (auto shutdown) when the quake occurred, but the operators overrode the automatic equipment since the reactor pressure was dropping so rapidly. Essentially, they bypassed the safeties.

Now, this did not cause the loss of backup power (the tsunami took care of that) but it serves to illustrate the cluster[censored] that was at play.

I wasn’t previously aware of that. Oddly enough, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were ALSO the result of operational over ride of the safety systems. For TMI, the operators decided that the readings were “impossible” and for Chernobyl, they wanted to run an experiment that was outside the safety limits of the reactor. Which part of “outside the safety limits” they failed to understand is beyond me.

Seriously. At the time I worked in a nuclear facility. One of our instructors is a top tier nuclear safety training expert. He spent several days at Fukishima doing evaluations, in fact he trained some of those people. After he returned he sat in my office for 2 hours and described what was going on, what he had seen.

The next weekend we had a family dinner. My brother was going on about all the crap he’d read on internet sites. I corrected him. He argued and told me I didn’t know anything about what’s REALLY going on. Seriously. As if leftist anti-nuke sites had more “real” information than a nuclear safety training expert’s direct on-site experience.

I suggested that “you can’t fix stupid”, and ever since then our family relationship has been… um… strained.

In fact, Fukushima demonstrated that in spite of the absolute worst case scenario times 10, the safety measures (even though they were ancient and not nearly as good as what newer reactors get) worked. The containment worked. Releases were limited and relatively benign. But some people will never, ever believe that. How many people died from the explosion at the refinery a few miles away that day?

After reading this story I have a few non-scientific questions:
1. If the Europeans are hard-charging to ditch all of their “green” energy stuff that is hemorrhaging money, does that mean they will start issuing university grants to “deniers”? If so, we might be able to reintroduce true skepticism to science.
2. Will the hit in their pocketbooks make the Europeans begin looking at AGW with something approaching skepticism?
3. If we pass (another) tipping point will all the AGW folks please admit it and admit that scare tactic science is best dumped in the trash? I would love to see this website and others like it dedicate space to the past tipping points and their timelines similar to the “ice free arctic sea” one on the home page. It would make a nice visual for me to show other folks when they ask me why I go against the “scientific consensus.”

If you guys go with four more years of President Hopey Changey, Greece on the Potomac will be an instant replay of this.

Just sayin’
=========================================
It won’t take 4 years of Dopey Changey. I don’t know if this is fully appreciated here, but all of these energy and fuel alternatives have served to constrain economies to where they cannot grow. I’m afraid that the debt accrued, not only by Greece, but by the other southern European nations has gone beyond a point of redemption. I think Finland is prepared to pull out of the Eurozone. I think if they do Germany will follow suit, though, they don’t want to. At some point, they’ll realize they can’t float all of these nations indefinitely. Kudos to the UK for not entering the trap but, they’ve large challenges ahead as well.

The US could probably still fix their debt problem, but it won’t fix the economic ruin we’ve had in the last 5 years or so.. If and when the US gets working again, we would see all of that crap capital our Fed keeps printing come flooding the country and across our borders.

While not all of the economic problems can be laid at the feet of these stupid energy and fuel schemes, they did constrain growth when two of the largest economies desperately needed it.

30 Sept: UK Express: THE HUSH-HUSH MAP THAT PAINTS SCOTLAND GREEN
Scotland’s familiar rugged outline is peppered with at least 535 huge wind farms – taking up an estimated three to five per cent of the total land mass of Scotland – many of them located in areas of outstanding natural beauty.
Officials at Government quango Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) published the “wind farm footprint map” last month, quietly releasing it on their website with little or no fanfare…
However, even this crowded document does not tell the whole story as it only includes wind turbines of more than 164 feet in height – twice the height of the Falkirk Wheel – and ignores hundreds of smaller projects…
However, there are 357 – almost exactly twice as many – still in the pipeline, either at the application stage or at the earlier scoping, or investigation, stage…
Meanwhile, the Scottish Government has announced a £300,000 fund to help local authorities deal with being inundated with the massive number of wind farm applications by developers…
A spokesman for the John Muir Trust: “Scots have a special connection to our landscape. It is part of heritage and perhaps in danger of being destroyed by a combination of energy corporations making huge profits from subsidies, landowners making sizeable sums of money as well as governments that just want to meet targets rather than look at the overall impact of this programme.”…http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/349057

29 Sept: BBC: Fund of £300,000 to help with rise in wind farm applications
Earlier this year Aberdeenshire Council asked for a six-month moratorium on applications for wind farms after the authority received 800 applications in 14 months…
Councils need to prove evidence of their need to secure funding…http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-19772574

After reading this story I have a few non-scientific questions:
1. If the Europeans are hard-charging to ditch all of their “green” energy stuff …….
===========================================
It isn’t that easy over there. They’ve a crazy form of government. They are quasi-autonomous. As noted above, much of these insipidly stupid “green energy” mechanism derive from mandates from the EU. Those countries have signed commitments to pursue this madness. I’m not sure how other EU countries would react if a few of them said they were done playing this horrible game. But, it would test Brussell’s authority.

“Wayne, LFTR is not proven technology. You are marketing it as if it is.”

Gamecock, I beg to differ. There is a difference between “not proven” and not fully commercialized. LFTR is proven technology. See the paper below which clearly establishes that LFT reactors have been built and operated at Oak Ridge National Laboratories in the early 1970’s. It took me less than a minute to track this paper down. If you wish to explore LFRTs further which I recommend before further posting on this subject. Further, IIRC, one was also operated for several years at the Idaho National laboratory, too. Sadly, China and India appear to be well ahead of the US in commercializing the technology.

I am looking forward with much glee to the idea of rolling blackouts across the EU. Even more so if they happen in the winter so as to maximize the pain and suffering. Why? Because this is the only thing that will wake up the public and arouse them to yell at their governments louder than the green activists do.

“Now the technology is being developed by Japan, China, the UK, Russia, and private US, Czech and Australian companies.”

=======

“Being developed” means it does not exist. The great presumption that it will be developed has no historical basis. Breeding thorium to U-233 has been done in government reactors. But even at 100 times the neutron flux in power reactors, not enough was converted to be worthwhile.
With the abysmal track record, thorium breeding must be demonstrated as feasible before it should be accepted as feasible.

“And whose fault is it?” People who saw it didn’t work. The technology was the problem, not the Democrats. Nice to hear they got one thing right.

And with the loss fo heat in Arctic seas, and the lack of heat gain in the southern oceans, and the rather sleepy sun.. I think this will happen MUCH sooner than people expect.
I hope I’m wrong, but there could be serious issues in northern countries this coming winter.

James Sexton says: “My feelings are that Greece will default sometime after the US elections. (Yes, Obama asked them not to make a decision on their bailout until after the election and the Eurozone complied.)”

Neill says: “Even as all these ominous events occur in fairly rapid succession, the Warmist faith in their Cause seems unshaken. Truly disastrous events are sure to occur before they realize their folly, after which it will likely be too late to avert massive economic catastrophe.”

Oh, they will have an answer. They always do. Here it is: “Using half measures was our only mistake. Full Marxist policies should have been implemented from the start, instead of permitting partial free markets. Thus the disaster is actually the result of capitalism, QED.”

Silver Ralph says: “I posted long articles about wind-intermittancy on the Wiki wind power pages, in 2005, and they were deleted time and time again. Finally I was kicked off Wiki for “site vandalism”. That’s right – telling the truth on Wiki is classed as vandalism.”

Do you mean Wikipedia? A wiki can mean one of a fairly large number of sites: wiki – Any collaborative website that users can easily modify via the web, typically without restriction. ‘Wiki’ is not a useful abbreviation for Wankerpedia…oops, I mean Wikipedia.

Reblogged this on Is it 2012 in Nevada County Yet? and commented:
California has often been compared to Greece as our debt continues to grow and our political leaders continue to spend. Business are leaving the state and our political leaders continues to claim that the state has a business friendly environment. They are in denial, just like the Greeks, were and now reality if forcing them to pay the price of economic stupidity. We will soon have our own reality check.

James Sexton says: “My feelings are that Greece will default sometime after the US elections. (Yes, Obama asked them not to make a decision on their bailout until after the election and the Eurozone complied.)”

Dang. You’re right. I can’t believe this. It’s huge:
=================================================
Somewhere along the way we lost our free media. We lost our way. Our free press died long ago. It is the only reason why blogs like WUWT exist. This too, will end.

1. Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.
…
8. The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.
_________

We could not have stated this more clearly, but we were ignored and criticized for climate sacrilege.

The results, a decade later, are obvious:

Re #1: Despite increases in atmospheric CO2, here has been NO net global warming in 10-15 years.

Re #8: Green energy has been a total disaster.

If your auto mechanic or your plumber had a track record as bad as the IPCC and the global warming fanatics, you would have sued them by now, for wrecking your car and your house.

Perhaps it is time to sue the IPCC and the greens for all the needless trouble they have caused

Lessee if I’ve got this straight: Japan had a pretty bad incident with Fukushima caused by a once-in-a-lifetime tsunami, so Switzerland is going to phase out nuclear power?

Far rarer than once-in-a-lifetime IIRC the last similar size earthquake and tsunami to affect Japan was something of the order of 1,500 years ago. When did Switzerland last have a large earthquake? Don’t think a landlocked country has ever encountered a tsunami in recorded history either…

I posted up on Bishop Hill about power lines in the Channel Tunnel and the Prospect of major civil Unrest and very very very very remote possibility of civil war in Bankrupt Greece.
There was a Greek Anarchist Terrorist group operating in th1980s .They kidnapped a British diplomat and shot dead the British Military Attache.We ve had rioting in the UK.In Greece they had a 15 year old Petrol Bomber shot dead by police.
A European Smart grid to feed in renewable power may not be such a smart idea
Constant power outrages was one of the driving factors of the fierce Insurgency in Iraq.
A hot Middle Eastern country Air Conditioning and Refrigeration are a Necessity
Most NATO Losses are the Strategic Helmond Province .The Helmond River supplying the Hydro Electric Dam in Afghanistan. The highest profile Taliban target
A Europe wide power smart Grid .And French and German Power companies and they can simply pull the plug when they want paying they got Bills to pay too.
Austerity power cuts in Greece.The European Superstate in super trouble

Dang, dang, dang, you are right. And I thought I kept up to date with Euro news. They sure kept this one quiet.

But it makes sense. It was the fawning Europeans who gave Obama a Nobel Prize simply for being elected. How utterly absurd was that?

It was the Guardianistas of London who genuflected to their new god and said the world would not have a decade of peace because their new god had been elected in the US. Oh, and his son had just won the F1 motor racing contest and his other son had won the Ryder Cup (I kid you not).

I’m all for renewable’s like wind, water, solar, wood burning,,,you name it. But you know lunatics are running the asylum is the time they pay you more for a power source than the value of supply.

Nuclear power as we know it now is ***not sustainable***. We are down to a world reserve peak reserves to 40 years of yellow cake. LFTR’s are the only saving grace.

Sean mentioned rolling blackouts over the EU for lessons learned. Hey, I have a telescope. Bring it on :)))
Seriously and also hilariously nearly all Solar units are grid tied. So if the mains supply goes down because the French cannot keep up with European demand then all the localised Solar units on peoples roofs will also be turned off.

Gamecock says:
September 29, 2012 at 5:51 pm
““Being developed” means it does not exist. The great presumption that it will be developed has no historical basis. Breeding thorium to U-233 has been done in government reactors. But even at 100 times the neutron flux in power reactors, not enough was converted to be worthwhile.
With the abysmal track record, thorium breeding must be demonstrated as feasible before it should be accepted as feasible. ”

One consequence of calling anyone who presents scientific, engineering, and economic data that supports the assertion that “green” energy is a scam a “denier” is the scam causes significant economic and environmental damage before countries run out of money to support the scam.

The fiasco of converting food to biofuel is another example. As there is a limited amount of agricultural land to grow food, mandating that automobile and aviation fuel must contain 10% biofuel will result the destruction of vast regions of virgin forest and a lack of food in third world countries. For example 40% of the US corn crop is currently converted to biofuel.

When the increased CO2 emissions from the destruction of virgin forest is taken into account biofuel produces more greenhouse gases and causes significantly less environmental damage than conventionally sourced transportation fuel.

“Why, then, did more than a hundred non-governmental organisations recently send the European Commission a warning letter, and why have about two hundred renowned scientists launched another appeal? The answer is to be found in four letters: ILUC, for “Indirect Land Use Change.” If it were European fields that were sown to oilseed rape for biodiesel, under current legislation all would be well: we would emerge with clear emission savings, even factoring in the fuel consumed in the harvesting and in producing fertilisers and so on.
European rapeseed, however, was once pressed into edible oils, which covered European consumption and even made its way into the kitchens of China and India; today, however, rapeseed oil is ending up in diesel engines, and Europe is importing vegetable oils to replace it. These replacement oils are made from (among other things) palm oils, which are grown on immense plantations in Malaysia and Indonesia – often on land opened up by clearing virgin rainforests and by draining wetlands.

Once these indirect emissions are factored in, it turns out that biofuel from rapeseed, enforced by quotas and supported by tax breaks, harms the climate more than conventional oil.”

http://www.rainforestfoundationuk.org/eu-commission
With a few clicks below, you can add your voice against an issue we at the Rainforest Foundation UK and many other NGOs around the world consider to be a total scandal.
EU renewable energy legislation states that 10% of all road transport fuel in the EU will need to be “renewable” by 2020. Unfortunately this means biofuels, many of which are causing rainforest destruction and making climate change worse. Biodiesel from palm oil is one of the worst offenders. …. …. A leaked draft EU document shows that the EU Commission would like to rename palm oil plantations as “forest” so that biodiesel from palm oil plantations can still meet EU biofuels sustainability criteria. Palm oil expansion is a major cause of deforestation and biodiesel from palm oil can create more greenhouse gas emissions than the fossil fuel it is meant to replace. Please email the new energy and environment Commissioners and ask them to change this document to give a clear message to member states that biodiesel from palm oil should not be part of sustainable EU energy provision. The leaked draft document from the EU Commission is available HERE.

Gamecock said: “’Being developed’ means it does not exist. The great presumption that it will be developed has no historical basis. Breeding thorium to U-233 has been done in government reactors. But even at 100 times the neutron flux in power reactors, not enough was converted to be worthwhile. With the abysmal track record, thorium breeding must be demonstrated as feasible before it should be accepted as feasible. People … saw it didn’t work. The technology was the problem, not the Democrats.”

Where do you get that nonsense? Or don’t you have any valid references?

William says:
September 30, 2012 at 6:32 am
“http://www.rainforestfoundationuk.org/eu-commission
With a few clicks below, you can add your voice against an issue we at the Rainforest Foundation UK and many other NGOs around the world consider to be a total scandal.”

Kudos to the UK for not entering the trap but, they’ve large challenges ahead as well

But they have; They follow all EU regs to the letter. The only euro country that does.
================================================================
True, but the trap I was referring to was the decision not to enter the Eurozone. The EU regs are correctable. The Eurozone is soon to end in tears and heartbreak.

James Sexton says:
September 30, 2012 at 8:11 am
“True, but the trap I was referring to was the decision not to enter the Eurozone. The EU regs are correctable. The Eurozone is soon to end in tears and heartbreak.”

No, it will take decades of devaluation and political chaos to unravel. This is not a quick divorce; it’s an alcoholic who beats his wife green and blue for 30 years before the wife runs away.

The alcoholic is the eurocracy; the wife are the economies of the Eurozone.

Face it James the American debt problem is mostly the result of a cabal of Republican wankers under George Bush launching an oil war in Iraq for corporate profit. How many trillion did that war cost and what did the American middle class get for routing out all those WMD’s ? Didn’t those trillions spent in Iraq just end up in the rich mans pocket ? I suggest America’s first step in fixing their debt problem should be “separation of Corporation and State”.

Scotland has about 1,000 MW installed hydro capacity, the equivalent of about 2 large coal fired units.

The capacity is spread across about 50 individual stations at various sizes. The smallest are less than 1 MW, and the largest is 100 MW.

Annual production is typically 3,000 MWh and varies from year to year as you would expect. This is about 30% load factor.

As somebody said, there is limited scope for hydro developments and not a lot of scope for new developments.

Hydro is not as controllable as people often assume. There is good flexible production within Scotland, when rainfall patterns are well matched to storage design. When storage is empty or full, flexibility is lost. Also, a significant portion of Scotland’s hydro has little or no storage and is effectively run-of-river.

Another thing that people often miss is that storage and precipitation is at altitude. It can be stuck in the mountains for much of the winter as snow or ice. Production can therefore be at its greatest in spring, and annual generation volumes do not neatly map-onto peak winter demand for power.

The one argument that does not fly with the eco-green is cost effectiveness of wind etc. The object is to INCREASE energy costs as a market-driven incentive to reduce consumption, so an increase in cost is a benefit, not a reason to object to green energy. A (false) comment in the Greece article also addresses this: a reference to the “increasingly scarce” resources of coal and oil. In a resource-scarce world of fossil fuels, the energy alternative to green energy will rise also, so that the cost-comparison between green and non-green diminish even if the cost of green energy doesn’t come down. Time – 2020, here, heals this wound, or at least diminishes the bleeding.

The false comment is, of course, that fossil fuels are increasingly scarce. Coal, for certain, is not increasingly scarce. The Chinese know this, and show us this by their building of coal plants. We know where the coal is, we know how to produce it; it is only the CO2 capture costs that prevent us right now from refuelling the future with coal. If/Once we get rid of CAGW, coal can come back into its own.

All arguments with or about green energy have got to occur outside the cost, especially the present cost. Cost is not prohibitive in the eco-green philosophy, as discussed above. The additional cost is a transfer of environmental costs as the eco-green see them from the commons, where everyone suffers but nobody is accountable, to the energy user. At worst, the additional “cost” of green energy is a recognition of hidden costs only. At best it is a recognition that an improvement or sustainability of this world requires us to order a latte or two less in our daily lives.

What we really don’t see in the eco-green costs, however, is the maintenance and replacement of the wind and wave and solar projects. There is insufficient profit in these to operate them, right now, let alone fix and replace them as they wear out. Subsidies for creating are one thing, but the subsidies right now are for running: this is what is alarming. The actual cost is greater, I believe, than the current worst of the current comments.

Oh, I didn’t mention profits, also. Unless the green energy becomes a Department of Defence type mandate, wherein we are taxed for the pleasure of throwing our money away (called “peace”) there has to be profit.

“Far rarer than once-in-a-lifetime IIRC the last similar size earthquake and tsunami to affect Japan was something of the order of 1,500 years ago.”

…so this tsunami was clearly exasperated by CO2 and global warming? I mean, how else could such a historically rare event occur? [/sarc]

Sigh, I lost a friend to Fukushima much the same way CodeTech experienced a rip between his brother and himself. I did not even put much effort into it, I simply handed him a few links to theregister.co.uk and that was it. He instantly labelled me as a stupid shill for the nuclear industry or something to that effect and hasn’t spoken to me since, except when he had his gf email to let us know they weren’t going to attend our wedding.

Meanwhile I keep waiting for those reports about kids who glow in the dark or something. We will need glowing kids here in Europe when we finally shut down what remains of our nuclear power plants. I for one enjoy being able to see in the dark.

Doug Proctor says:
September 30, 2012 at 10:49 am
“What we really don’t see in the eco-green costs, however, is the maintenance and replacement of the wind and wave and solar projects. There is insufficient profit in these to operate them, right now, let alone fix and replace them as they wear out. Subsidies for creating are one thing, but the subsidies right now are for running: this is what is alarming. The actual cost is greater, I believe, than the current worst of the current comments.”

“In 2010 the UK’s National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) published a paper on the thorium cycle, concluding for the short to medium term:
“NNL believes that the thorium fuel cycle does not currently have a role to play in the UK context, other than its potential application for plutonium management in the medium to long term and depending on the indigenous thorium reserves, is likely to have only a limited role internationally for some years ahead. The technology is innovative, although technically immature and currently not of interest to the utilities, representing significant financial investment and risk without notable benefits. In many cases, the benefits of the thorium fuel cycle have been over-stated.”

Nuclear power as we know it now is ***not sustainable***. We are down to a world reserve peak reserves to 40 years of yellow cake. LFTR’s are the only saving grace.
——————————————————————-
The Chinese are currently building 24 large nuke power plants. Do you really think they are so short sighted to do that knowing they will run out of fuel in 40 years? The term “years of yellowcake” is a metric used by Big Green to make nuke power look bad. There’s currently enough burnable power plant waste to add 70 years to that number, whatever it is. If you assume breeding U into Pu and Th into U, there’s a thousand years of fission fuel. And why is breeding thorium into uranium associated with liquid fluorine? LFTRs may be desirable, but it’s not the only way to use thorium.

The South Koreans have taken up some reactor development abandoned by the US, including waste burning in their Dupic versions of Canadian Candu reactors. They now generate about 30% of their electricity with nukes and plan to double that in the next decade. S. Korea’s biggest problem is the ability to do research without violating US/Korean agreements. Ironic, isn’t it?http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf81.html
The Chinese are doing lots of development, including fast neutron breeder commercialization.http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63b_china_nuclearfuelcycle.html

Dan in California says:
September 30, 2012 at 12:24 pm
“The Chinese are currently building 24 large nuke power plants. Do you really think they are so short sighted to do that knowing they will run out of fuel in 40 years? The term “years of yellowcake” is a metric used by Big Green to make nuke power look bad. ”

We know where the coal is, we know how to produce it; it is only the CO2 capture costs that prevent us right now from refuelling the future with coal.

Why in the world would anyone want to capture CO2, and deprive the world of CO2 enhanced growth, to feed a growing population?! Are you someone who believes the human population should be culled? Try not to be anti-human. GK

Thorium? Is that your whole point, that thorium makes a problematic nuclear fuel? I guess I didn’t understand how little you know about the subject. You are confusing a subset of potential breeder-reactor fuels with an entire technology, including using “spent” fuel from conventional reactors. Our current use of uranium is profligate, Just a few percentages of the fuel is actually consumed plus some extremely long-lived isotopes are produced which creates long-term disposal problems. Breeder reactors can produce ten times the energy from nuclear waste as was obtained by conventional reactors the first time around and reduce the long-term radioactivity produced from tens of thousands of years to a few hundred years. Yucca Mountain and similar disposal proposals would become far more practical.

In short, the quote you extracted from the reference you gave suggests that thorium is not likely to be among early solutions, but the quote is meaningless with respect to breeder reactors in general. Congress absolutely did not scrap the breeder programs because there are better fuels than thorium. If you think that thorium is critical to breeders, you need to read more. Start with the two references that I gave you.

It’s time we got off our backsides and did some serious development studies on a variety of breeders, coolants, and fuel reprocessing solutions. Reducing plutonium production and/or using it as additional fuel in breeder reactors is reason in and of itself not to dismiss the benefits of breeder technology.

But don’t write off thorium as a fuel. In several hundred years we could run low on uranium and spent fuels. Thorium is far more abundant. Several hundred years ago the idea of heavier-than air flight was ridiculous.

The USA did not achieve greatness because it was a nation of Luddites.

Gamecock says: October 1, 2012 at 1:50 pm
Sir, thorium is not a fuel. And a “thorium reactor” is preposterous.
—————————————————————-
For the benefit of the non-nuke savvy readers, this is technically correct and completely misleading. There are “breeders” and “burners”. In most current commercial power plants, the Uranium235 fuel loaded into the reactor accounts for about 70% of the fuel burned. During operation the non-fissionable but predominant U238 is bred into Plutonium239. The Pu239 is fissionable and accounts for the other fraction of fuel burned.

In a Thorium reactor, Th232 is bred into U233, which in turn fissions (burns) to generate heat and power. Since Thorium is far more plentiful than U235, it is a very long term resource. Here’s further reading: http://energyfromthorium.com/

Dan said: “In a Thorium reactor, Th232 is bred into U233, which in turn fissions (burns) to generate heat and power.”

Preposterous. You can seed a uranium reactor with thorium, but it is still a uranium reactor.
Calling it a thorium reactor is nice marketing, but it is BS.

LFTR: “Conceptual designs for these reactors have never shown sufficient economic promise or security advantages to compete with LWRs and FRs.” This is from Mr. Cooper’s second link.
His first one is 7 years old.

Breeding thorium into useful, integral fuel is still just theoretical, even though the concept is older than me. And I’m on Social Security.

I was talking to a German nuclear scientist (who was looking for a job in the UK). He said that half Germany’s nuclear plants were already closed. To make up the difference, they are boosting output from brown-coal plants, and imports from France.

However, the brown-coal plants are the dirtiest of all, increasing CO2 output by a considerable margin. And the electricity from France is all nuclear.

Are these ‘believers’ mad or what? If we let them, they will destroy us all.

Well, that’s true. But brown coal is great, CO2 is beneficial, and the more produced the better. Not that mankind’s CO2 output has squat to do with the atmospheric balance.